About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

B-277827.5 1 (1999-04-29)

handle is hein.gao/gaocrptajef0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 


Comptroller General
of the United States

Washington, D.C. 20548
Decision                                     DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
                                            The decision issued on the date below was subject to a
                                            GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been
                                            approved for public release.




Matter of: Marquette Medical Systems, hie.

File:      B-277827.5; B-277827.7

Date:      April 29, 1999


Mitchell W. Quick, Esq., Michael, Best & Friedrich, for the protester.
William M. Weisberg, Esq., and Monica C. Parchment, Esq., Tucker Flyer, for Hewlett-
Packard Company, an intervenor.
Col. Nicholas P. Retson, and Maj. Jonathan C. Guden, Department of the Army, for
the agency.
Peter A. Jannicelli, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST

1. Where solicitation for a fixed-price contract stated that offerors could propose
either to provide new items or to upgrade the existing ones and that proposed prices
would be calculated by adding the total proposed price for the basic requirement to
the prices proposed for all option periods, agency improperly deviated from
solicitation's evaluation criteria when it adjusted proposed prices to take into account
the agency's expectations of savings associated with the offer of new items and
additional costs associated with upgraded ones.

2. Agency's normalization of offerors' prices was not reasonable where it double
counted the cost difference associated with the use of new rather than upgraded
existing items by both deducting the price of new items from the total price of the
offeror proposing them and adding the price of replacement items to the price of the
offeror proposing to upgrade existing ones.

3. Protest ground alleging that technical evaluation of awardee's proposal was
improper is denied where there is ample support in the record for the evaluators'
determination that the awardee had extensive prior experience and for the
evaluators' high rating of the awardee's proposal on quality of technical approach.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most